Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy and American Society

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Energy and American Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:BK ScienceApologist (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom 3 Gnews hits with none of them a review, Google Books similarly does not produce reviews. RayAYang (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Keep as per reviews found by johnfos below. RayAYang (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable contributors such as Amory Lovins and Joseph Romm have written chapters in this book. Johnfos (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So? How does that contribute to the notability? Or are you claiming that they are such overwhelmingly important people that anything they write is notable? RayAYang (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are scholarly reviews for this book here and here. Johnfos (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep + retitle Per Johnfos. The notability of this book doesn't appear to be problematic. Ecoleetage (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep+retitle. In addition to the reviews Johnfos mentions, the book was backed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory and published by Springer, a heavyweight scientific publisher. However I'd rename the article using the book's full title Energy and American Society – Thirteen Myths, as Energy and American Society is too broad, e.g. it might be used to sum up analyses of energy consumption in the USA, history of energy usage and links to other social trends such as women's lib, policies, academic analyses, public attitudes, etc. --Philcha (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename if the claims of being backed by notable sources as said by User:Philcha are true and accurate. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 23:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.